On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > > You may not, but others have valid reasons, it seems to me.
> >
> > Good, then let them voice them. I haven't seen any except
> > for hubertf's, who was starting from a wrong assumption (that
> > it _did_ compile on AIX before), which dillo corrected.
>
> Dan bumped the version number in the first place.
But Dan doesn't feel too strongly either way here ;)
You will note that I didn't change PKGTOOLS_REQD so its not like
I've forced any sort of update here. I could be persuaded either way.
Now that I think about it, since sources live here, they could be
considered like patches are when deciding on PKGREVISION bumps for
other pkgs. So if a changes doesn't change working
platforms and it goes from no-compile to working on some other platform
I suppose you don't need a bump because no one should have a broken
installed pkg_install. Clearly if you went from "compiles
but doesn't work" to "compiles but does work" you'd want the bump.
If someone from pkgsrc-pmc wants to make an executive decision
I'll either revert the bump if thats decided or leave it be.
If anyone needs me, I'll be washing my hands over and over. I
used AIX and feel dirty.
-Dan
--